Indigeneity, subversion, and the trauma of settler colonialism: A reply to Kurzwelly and Mullard

In her response to my article, “Authenticity and Decolonization: On the Subversive Authenticity of Indigenous Resurgence,” Jordan Mullard invites me to regard subversive authenticity as a way of reckoning with the trauma of settler colonialism through a process of “becoming.” Conversely, Kurzwelly doubts the political and analytical efficacy of the concept, offering an anti-realist “alternative point of departure.” Engaging with Kurzwelly's critique, I contend that anti-realism is in fact compatible with my argument that subversive authenticity can serve as a conduit for decolonization. To do so, I propose an analytical distinction between the terms “indigenous” and “indigeneity.” Whereas discussions about the concept indigenous tendentially pivot toward identitarian issues, “indigeneity” denotes a relative positioning within a settler-colonial structure of oppression. Building on this argument, I explore the potential of subversive authenticity as a political strategy and a form of “becoming.” I conclude with a brief reflection on how this exchange suggests contrasting interpretations of the function of theorizing in anthropological research.